I would like to close summarizing the distinctions in regards to the different types of necessities pertaining to salvation in regards to Baptism, dying within the Church, and supernatural Faith regarding the need to believe in (1) God and that (2) God rewards the good and punishes evil, (3) the Incarnation and (4) the Holy Trinity and whether only the first two or all four are necessary beliefs for salvation to be possible as taught by the Church thusly:

        Some theologians teach that two truths must be believed with a necessity of means and others teach that four must be believed. Still others teach that four are only required in places where the Gospel has been preached but only two are required in other places. It all depends on how God willed it. He could have willed to require explicit faith in all four truths or only in two, but in either case He will infallibly grant to each soul the opportunity to arrive at explicit faith in these 2 or 4 truths as the case may be. In the Old Testament, clearly explicit faith in the Trinity was not required.

        As far as what is intrinsically necessary, this has nothing to do with the question on whether 2 or 4 truths are required to be believed with explicit faith. Intrinsic necessity would apply to whatever truths were so basic that faith would be impossible without them. For example, one clearly cannot have any virtue of faith whatsoever if he did not even believe that God exists, since faith is a firm assent of the intellect to the truths revealed by God. How could one accept a truth revealed by a God whom he denies exists?

        The necessity of believing all 4 truths may still be by necessity of means even though not through intrinsic necessity. Baptism is a necessary means of salvation, but it is a relative necessity, i.e. it is a necessary means because God has willed it to be so; it is a means -- not merely a precept -- but a means because willed by God as a means. However, it is not intrinsically necessary so that God could never grant salvation without it. He can make exceptions to His own plan of salvation, i.e. to the ordinary means: Baptism. Similarly, Mary is necessary for our salvation as a necessary means of obtaining grace, but this is a relative necessity, i.e. she is a necessary means of getting to heaven because God has willed it to be so. Her intercession is not intrinsically or absolutely necessary as St. Louis de Montfort explains in True Devotion. However, God makes no exception to the need for Mary's intercession to get to Heaven; He does make exception to the need for Baptism, and possibly He makes exception to the need to know the Trinity (if we follow the opinion of some theologians).

        Also, in another opinion, as pointed out in the quote by St. Alphonsus, some theologians apparently regard belief in the Trinity as a precept and not a means of salvation.

        The closest the Church has ever come to answering whether all four beliefs were necessary was in the reply of a Roman Congregation that said one cannot baptize even a dying person without first instructing them in all four truths. However, theologians agree that this reply was not a definitive answer to the debate but only a norm for practice.

        Obviously it is intrinsically or absolutely necessary to die within the Church for salvation to be possible as we have been stating throughout this series.

    Further in order to respond to the Feeneyites objection that we can ignore a letter from the holy office because it is not infallible, to reiterate once again that the minimum amount of articles necessary for one to have the supernatural Faith necessary for salvation to be possible, and whether Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved I answer as follows:

        The "authority" who accepts Suprema Haec Sacra included everyone in the Catholic Church at the time except for Fr. Feeney and his followers - Fenton, for example, certainly accepted it, and why shouldn't he? It was a letter from the Holy Office, whose head is the Pope, and Pius XII himself approved the explanation given. All Catholics are obliged to accept authoritative docuмents, which the letter certainly is, with an interior ascent. To refuse to believe it would be a mortal sin. Further the entire letter is laced with infallible teachings from beginning begging to end in its doctrinal section. For instance the letter teaches that their is no salvation outside the Church. Would the Feeneyites have us reject this teaching because it is "not infallible"?

        The question is whether it is possible for Jews, Muslims, and pagans to possess the virtue of Faith. I do not see how it is possible, but from what I recall Bishop Sanborn saying, this was something that was still being disputed among theologians (emphasis mine), at least as far as the details. Please read Fr. Riccardo Lombardi, "The Salvation of the Unbeliever" (1956) and Fr. Maurice Emynian, "The Theology of Salvation" (1960), for a deeper understanding of this issue. Oftentimes these questions are quite thorny and not so easily resolved. There is a reason why the Church commissions specially trained theologians and not just anyone to tackle such questions.

        The Suprema Haec Sacra does not say that Jews, Muslims, or pagans can be saved. On the contrary, it suggests that they cannot, inasmuch as it says that supernatural Faith is required for an implicit desire for baptism.

        There is NO question that the virtue of Faith is necessary by an absolute i.e. intrinsic necessity of means. That is indisputable.

        Lay people are quite welcome to study the distinctions (and we barely touched on a few of the numerous distinctions and vast amount of terminology pertaining to theology) pointed out at the beginning of this article (but not listed in this post) but should not come to conclusions on issues that have not been settled by the Church such as whether there are two or four minimal beliefs we must have in order to have supernatural Faith.

        Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

        But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:
       

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

        The virtue of humility can off-set head-strong people who insist on their opinions above that of the approved theologians, Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes. For it is better to trust what a valid Pope teaches than to trust more in our own intellects:

       

Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of salvation, and that the one who does not enter it is going to perish in the deluge. But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this. (Pius IX Singulari Quadum)

 

That's better.  I'll come back to some of your points later today.  At one point you did digress into BoD, which I won't address here.  I intend to stay on topic.  This way we can avoid the frustration caused by the wild digressions.

The strange thing is that I posted the OP many times yet many people kept accusing me of not answering the question  :confused1:

Maybe because I did not start it as a new thread but in response to others?

Problem #1 with Rewarder God theory.

No Catholic Pope, Doctor, Father, or theologian before about the year 1600 ever taught or believed that salvation in the New Testament era is possible without knowledge of Christ.  There's clear unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers on this matter.  So every Catholic everywhere from the beginning of the Church for 1600 years believed that knowledge of Christ was necessary for salvation.  If that doesn't constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, then I do not know what does.

When this concept was first introduced by some Jesuit theologians about the year 1600, it was a NOVELTY.

So you claim that we must believe anything held by a moral unanimity of theologians but then think it's OK to reject something that ALL theologians held for 1600 years?  Why?  Just because the Church didn't condemn it solemnly?  That rejects the infallibility of the OUM.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The closest the Church has ever come to answering whether all four beliefs were necessary was in the reply of a Roman Congregation that said one cannot baptize even a dying person without first instructing them in all four truths. However, theologians agree that this reply was not a definitive answer to the debate but only a norm for practice.

Bovine excrement.  Certainly Holy Office docuмents do not define doctrine.  But it's clear that the Holy Office considered the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as "necessary by a necessity of means for salvation".  I like how you do not actually produce the text but gloss over this with a gratuitous assertion that this was a norm for practice only.  Well, duh, that's what all Canon Law is.  Canon Law is not Magisterium.  Similarly with the Code's mention of BoD for catechumens, I stated the same thing, that it's not Magisterium but merely a norm for practice.  Nevertheless, if you look at the text, it's clear that the Holy Office consider these truths necessary by a necessity of means for salvation.

Quote from: Holy Office

Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind.  Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
    “A.  A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”[Denzinger 1349a]

Quote from: Holy Office

Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes… although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
    “A.  A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.”[Denzinger 1349b]

Despite the fact that the injunction is practical in nature, determining whether or not someone should be baptized without knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity, the text clearly states that these truths are "necessary by a necessity of means" for supernatural faith.  Not Magisterial, not infallible, but certainly an insight into what these men believed.

Thank you for giving me something to work with instead of your personal thoughts on the topic.  

You give something you would claim is not infallible if it seemed to disagree with a position you held.  This is addressing something other than BOD.  It is addressing ecclesiastical discipline and it is a good discipline.  I agree with it whole-heatedly and this was mentioned in my OP. But this is a norm for practice and does not settle the debate as it does not address the issue of BOD and what constitutes the minimum necessary for Supernatural Faith, and with what necessity, but relates to Church Law.

As I have always said and will continue to say I accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue.  That should not get me accused as being a "Cushingite" let alone "heretic" which is the worst possible thing you can call a devoted son of the Church.  If the Church has authoritatively settled the issue one way or the other I accept it regardless of how it has been settled.  If it is not definitively settled as has seemed to be the case to me then I accept that and go no further myself.

Again, and I have said this a few times, I tend to think all four are necessary but I have not the authority to settle the issue if it has not been settled by the Church.  I can come to no definitive solution if the Church has not.  If Fenton in 1958 said it has not been settled I trust him more than you.  If all the traditional clergy, R & R and SV, are all in agreement on the issue I trust them more than myself.    

BOD was not really delved into in detail for centuries and the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were not solemnly defined until late.   The Immaculate Conception was legitimately debated for centuries because it was not authoritatively settled within the Church.  

But we should spend our time praying and converting others rather quibbling over the finer points of theology that should be left to theologians.  We both agree that supernatural Faith and perfect charity are necessary for salvation to be possible.  We both agree that one must at least believe (meaning you agree these two are necessary though you disagree that they could possibly be sufficient in any case or under any circuмstance), based upon God revealing, that God exists and rewards and punishes for their to be a supernatural Faith.  We both (I hope, I do) accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue and if it is not settled we accept that.    

When we try to convert others we teach the four basic beliefs and more and say they must be baptized as soon as the Church deems them ready.  We agree that if they refuse to be baptized or needlessly put it off they will be damned.  We know those under the age of reason cannot be saved apart from sacramental baptism.  We do not teach that baptism is optional or not necessary.  That is bonkers and no one who accepts the BOD doctrine have I ever seen be guilty of such a ridiculous accusation, though for some reason I get accused of this often by the blind bats in the belfry who look but do not see and hear but do not understand.

You also constantly try to beat us down on the BoD issue (which I refuse to discuss from this point forward) with this idea that most theologians in the last couple hundred years believe in it.

Yet you completely ignore the fact that NO THEOLOGIAN in the first 1600 years of Church history ever taught that people could be saved without knowledge of Christ.  You can demonstrate clear unanimous/dogmatic consensus among the Church Fathers on this issue.  Rewarder God theory, introduced by the Jesuits, was the very definition of novelty (never before heard in the history of the Church).  So if most theologians from 1800 on believe in BoD, then it's dogma.  But if ALL theologians for 1600 years believe that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity are required for salvation, then it's mere opinion.  You are totally inconsistent with yourself.  And that's because you are not honest and you have an agenda.

You have declared us to be impious for disagreeing with St. Thomas on BoD.

Yet these Jesuits disagreed with St. Thomas that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

Were they impious for doing so?

How many times do I have to post this before you acknowledge it:

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

    But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:

I'm not interested in that right now.  See the topic of this thread you created.  I've acknowledge at least 100 times that St. Thomas opines in favor of BoD.

My point is, if you say we are impious for rejecting St. Thomas on BoD, why aren't these Jesuit pioneers of Rewarder God theory not impious for rejecting St. Thomas on explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?

Quote from: Lover of Truth

How many times do I have to post this before you acknowledge it:

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

    But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:

I'm not interested in that right now.  See the topic of this thread you created.  I've acknowledge at least 100 times that St. Thomas opines in favor of BoD.

My point is, if you say we are impious for rejecting St. Thomas on BoD, why aren't these Jesuit pioneers of Rewarder God theory not impious for rejecting St. Thomas on explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?

My point is he makes no mention of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation when speaking directly on BOD.